{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-7283148d3c7c9497","slug":"2016-07-15-using-administrative-data-to-examine-global-citizenship-education","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2016-07-15","last_modified_date":"2016-07-15","title":"Using administrative data to examine global citizenship education","summary":"Assesses evidence on using administrative data to examine global citizenship education, with particular attention to definitions, population coverage, comparability.","category":{"code":"DATA_RESEARCH","label":"Data Research"},"article_type":"Data and research analysis","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"SDG target 4.7 implementation","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The present attention to administrative data to examine global citizenship education follows the SDG target 4.7 implementation and requires a careful distinction between public commitment, institutional practice and demonstrated result. A decision concerning the available evidence should recognise that the available evidence should be interpreted with close attention to definitions, population coverage, collection methods and the limits of comparison. System context should determine the appropriate administrative arrangement within the governing requirements.","The historical reference basis is the SDG target 4.7 implementation. Its relevance to the analysis should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. In relation to using administrative data to examine global citizenship education, any consequential application should rest on evidence suited to the affected scope, not on the existence of an international development alone."]},{"heading":"Evidence and method","paragraphs":["The system and institutional dimensions of administrative data to examine global citizenship education should be considered together. In reviewing the analysis, education indicators should support decisions by describing outcomes and variation with definitions and limitations that permit responsible interpretation. The regulatory setting is determined by public authorities, but responsibility for controlled provision remains with the provider. Neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.","A focused examination of the comparison requires a clear analytical discipline. Oversight of the measure should reflect the principle that a proxy is useful only where its relationship with the intended outcome is sufficiently understood. Participation, activity and expenditure may support learning, but none constitutes direct evidence of learning without an explicit and tested connection.","The principal risks in relation to the issue are proxy measures treated as direct outcomes, data revisions not carried through to published conclusions, averages concealing distribution, and incomplete coverage. The risks are interdependent; failure of one control may conceal or disable another."]},{"heading":"Patterns requiring examination","paragraphs":["The evidential record for administrative data to examine global citizenship education should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require population and sampling information, uncertainty estimates where relevant, coverage and missingness analysis, and indicator definitions and metadata, supported by disaggregated results and revision and comparability records.","Decisions concerning the measure should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period."],"bullets":["Test comparability.","Define the decision the indicator will inform.","Report uncertainty and revisions.","Avoid causal claims unsupported by the design, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.","Disaggregate material results before using it to determine a learner or provider outcome."]},{"heading":"Implications for decision-makers","paragraphs":["Responsibility for administrative data to examine global citizenship education should be visible at the point where consequential decisions are made. A decision concerning the issue should recognise that a sound interpretation should identify the unit of analysis, reference period, denominator, exclusions, missing values and any change in definition or collection practice. Escalation should follow whenever the available record cannot support a safe conclusion for the affected learners.","For operational review of the analysis, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. The method for the analysis is to state the construct to be measured, explain why the proxy is expected to represent it, test that relationship against direct evidence and identify circumstances in which the proxy may fail. Do not allow convenience to determine the measure.","Decision-makers using evidence on the comparison should be told what the data cannot establish as clearly as what it can. The nature of the result and its applicable unit—system, institution, programme or learner group—should be explicit. A finding should not be transferred beyond its setting without testing the relevant contextual differences.","Public reporting on the issue should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Changes to definitions or evidence should be recorded separately from changes in educational performance."]},{"heading":"Limits of inference","paragraphs":["Proportionality in relation to administrative data to examine global citizenship education does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. For the measure, measurement can reveal where outcomes differ; it does not by itself establish why they differ or which intervention will work. Oversight of the available evidence should reflect the principle that missing or delayed information may be patterned rather than random.","The measure of progress on the comparison is not the amount of policy or documentation produced. Progress is demonstrated when the intended educational result is achieved, adverse variation is identified and responsible bodies act where it is not."]}],"word_count":718,"content_hash":"sha256-40c721d3d1fd70daead71c81f19d381bee65832edb23a36e00606c8e26f4288b","seo_keywords":["using administrative data to examine global citizenship education","international education data research","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"AnalysisNewsArticle"}